PingingIfly6, who was in that conversation (and will probably have a valuable view on the sourcing), but I'm probably not going to have the time to take them up on their offer a proper collaboration at the moment, if indeed it still stands. Scanning back over the article quickly, I think what I wrote in 2023 is still true.UndercoverClassicistT·C10:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist Hello! As the editor who initially wrote and submitted this article as a FAC back in 2007, it behooves me 18 years later to now safeguard my little legacy here at Wikipedia. This review comes as no surprise, of course, considering how the article was never that stellar to begin with and further edits over time have diminished its quality even further (for the record I was not the one to add the smattering of primary sources cited in the article). I wrote this article when I was a 21-year-old in college with nothing better to do. I am now a middle aged man with a demanding full time job and an absurd amount of social commitments this spring. Please allow me a proper amount of time to address all of these concerns (at least a couple months). I have begun an earnest effort to address them by using up my break time at work (when I could be exercising instead, LOL) to cite Roller (2010) as a buttressing source for Eck & Takacs (2003). The latter is admittedly overused, but I don't see a need to remove any citations from that source if we can simply buttress it instead with multiple layers of verification via other cited secondary sources. Roller is certainly useful as an academic source for the bits about Cleopatra and Antony; I plan on adding other sources in the coming weeks. Unfortunately I do not have time tonight or even tomorrow night to continue work on this given my social commitments, but hopefully I can continue working on this by Thursday night and maybe, if I'm very lucky to have any free time and not utterly exhausted, on Sunday afternoon as well. I simply do not have ample time to do all of the work that is truly needed. I'm going to have to call on you and others to please aid me in my efforts to research secondary sources and add citations where they are most needed. Also, @AirshipJungleman29, if you could clarify exactly what you mean by "not enough detail on legacy and assessment in post-classical politics," I could begin to address that, but I'm not sure which details are missing in your estimation. Kind regards,Pericles of AthensTalk15:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting here that I will be busy all day today, but will make a concerted effort tomorrow (Sunday, April 26th) to read through Bringmann (2007), which I own, and continue citing that source in the article. I will also continue consulting Roller (2010) and adding citations from that source. If anyone has suggestions for easily accessible sources found online (via Google Books, for instance), that would be highly appreciated. I don't have a lot of time to drive down to the nearest university library and spend a day there finding suitable sources, reading them, taking notes, and then citing them here in the article. I'd rather avoid all of that just to salvage my old Featured article, but I will do what is necessary.Pericles of AthensTalk18:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I've made some small but noteworthy improvements already by using Bringmann (2007), but it's a real headache to clean up the sloppiness of other editors, especially in the "Name" section of the article that was created after my successful Featured Article candidacy of 2007. Too many cooks spoil the broth, so to speak! For instance, someone cited Goldsworthy (2014) without bothering to let us know which page number they consulted, and this particular citation was used to buttress a primary source citation for Suetonius. Ugh! There are a lot of weeds to untangle here, but I hope everyone will please be patient as I try to use what little spare time I have in the coming two months to address these problems. I have asked another Wiki editor who I've collaborated with in the past for help on this, but unfortunately this is out of their depth. @UndercoverClassicist Do you happen to have direct access to high quality recently published reliable sources on Augustus? I have a few books about ancient Rome lying around at home (like the aforementioned one by Bringmann), but I cannot use them for verifying everything. Any help would be greatly appreciated! I could use a helping hand right about now, because this whole thing is starting to give me a migraine, I'm sleep deprived as it is, and it's really starting to stress me out. I'm not looking forward to seeing one of my FAs lose its status only because I no longer have the adequate spare time in my busy life to work on articles here. Thanks for any help in advance and any life preservers thrown my way! Also pingingUser:Johnbod for help on this, out of sheer desperation (sorry to drag you into this mess, old friend, not sure who else to contact at this point since I rarely frequent Wikipedia anymore). Cheers.Pericles of AthensTalk03:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got to make this one brief, I'm afraid:
As a first step, I'd look to promote Zanker and the two Galinsky books from the Further Reading.
TheCambridge Companion gets a couple of cites: have we used that fully?
This one from 2010 is brief, but I suspect will have good bibliography.
This one (Hekster) is specifically about image, but I had it presented to me at a recent-ish conference as the "next word" from Galinsky, Zanker et al.
Thanks for highlighting these as important sources, but do you have access to these books? I have access like anyone else to resources made available on Google Books, but I'm not buying things on Amazon simply to improve a Wikipedia article (I'll see if Google Books contains snippets of these, but I'll need full access on a database like Internet Archive if I'm not driving down to my local university library). I don't work in academia, so I no longer have access to databases like JSTOR. I was at least able to use Fratantuono (2016) to untangle weeds and clean up the mess made by other editors in the "Names" section, deemphasizing Suetonius given @AirshipJungleman29's concerns about primary sources being used uncritically (though I don't mind retaining them in certain spots simply to buttress secondary sources and as a useful reference for readers). This article is going to take so much work, but unfortunately my workday has already begun, and I barely have a single free evening this entire week to sit down and give this article the attention it deserves. If you do not have the adequate spare time in your own busy life to help with edits to this article, do you by any chance know other editors here who would be willing to lend a helping hand? It's a daunting task simply because I don't have the time for it (not like I did when I was 21-years-old and editing here in between going to college classes, rock/metal concerts, and weekend keg parties, LOL). Would you have any spare time to help with cleaning up citations and shortening them? That alone is time consuming work. Any help on that alone would be hugely appreciated, and I'd give you a shiny reward on your talk page for it! Cheers.Pericles of AthensTalk13:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can get a lot of these viaWP:TWL, if you meet the criteria? The Cambridge Companion, for instance, can be read in full via Cambridge Core, which is part of that. I'm happy to send over individual chapters and articles, if you let me know what you're looking for -- otherwise, the good people atWP:RX always amaze me with their skills in tracking down obscure sources.UndercoverClassicistT·C13:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist Cool! Thanks for suggesting the Wiki Library. Oddly enough I knew nothing about it, probably because it was founded when I was overseas in the Peace Corps, and then shortly after that I moved to yet another country for my graduate degree and was not editing Wikipedia during that time either. How do I access this Cambridge Core, exactly? I don't see a link for it via the library. The resource request page looks promising, though. I will definitely utilize that and make a request or two there. Much appreciated! If the Cambridge Companion has a chapter or two on the early life and family upbringing of Octavian then it would be very helpful if you could share that. That's perhaps the part of the article that relies the most on primary source citations (I've started to reverse that already, but there is still much to be done there).Pericles of AthensTalk17:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to email me any chapter as such from the Companion, if that's how you intend to share it (that's usually how I've shared things in the past, aside from using personal sandboxes).Pericles of AthensTalk17:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cambridge Core is under Cambridge University Press -- the TWL link ishere; you'll have to be logged into TWL for it to work, or you might need to access it directly from the TWL page.UndercoverClassicistT·C18:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist Cool! Thanks! I have access to the Companion now, virtually every chapter. I don't see anything in particular about the early life of Augustus, though, just various things about his reign after he became emperor. Still very useful for the later part of our article here on Wikipedia, but I'll need additional sources about his childhood and family life.Pericles of AthensTalk19:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you come acrossthis fairly new biography (2023)? It has a slightly unusual focus (each chapter is based on an astronomical event), but a quick flick through suggests it's probably got as much on his birth and childhood as we're likely to get -- I imagine Goldsworthy and Everitt are probably similarly close to what's possible there?UndercoverClassicistT·C20:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist Nice find! Thanks for sharing. Although it contains a bunch of other tangential information, the first chapter of that book by Anne-Marie Lewis actually confirms a lot of material for the "Early life" section of our Wikipedia article. Bravo! When I have a chance tonight I will be adding this source to our bibliography and citing it generously in that section.Pericles of AthensTalk21:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm extremely happy to announce that Lewis (2023) has been added to "Sources" and cited in the article to confirm the birthplace as Ox Head on the Palatine Hill. I also relied on Lewis to create an endnote about Octavian's date of birth following the citation by Bringmann (2007). This article is starting to shape up! I have run out of time tonight, but I'll tackle it again later this week. I'm starting to feel much more optimistic about it! Cheers.Pericles of AthensTalk01:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist Hello again! Just letting you know that apparently only the introduction chapter ofThe Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus is available via PDF at www-cambridge-org. For whatever reason, the PDFs of other chapters only contain two pages: the cover page for the chapter followed by a blank page, and then nothing else. A shame! However, there are other sources to consult. The Cambridge Companion also doesn't help much with biographical details on Octavian's life, as we have discussed.Pericles of AthensTalk17:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you're downloading the right bits? If, for example, you download the PDF for "Part II: Intellectual and Social Developments", you get the two pages, but if you download any of its sub-parts (which are the "real" chapters, like "3 - Mutatas Formas: The Augustan Transformation of Roman Knowledge"), I at least get the full PDF. If that doesn't work for you, shoot me an email via Wikipedia with what you need: I should be able to get it.UndercoverClassicistT·C17:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was I was not able to see the sub-parts in the URL I was looking at, but I searched the book again in Cambridge Core, and now the sub-parts/chapters are listed. I'm reading Eder's chapter right now, so it appears that all is well. Thanks! As I suspected, though, it provides great information on the reign of Augustus, but not exactly the details of his early life as Gaius Octavius (and then Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus). It will at least be somewhat useful here and there, and I plan on citing Eder (2005) in the "Name" section at least once for backing up Bringmann (2007) on translating Augustus as "the revered".Pericles of AthensTalk13:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- honestly, I think you might end up being disappointed if you want to write a biography of the "real" Augustus that cuts through the myth-making and ideology -- I'm not convinced such a thing is possible! We have to be led by the sources: if they don't give a huge amount of detail about what Augustus did between the ages of four and ten, or what they do say is clearly just variations on traditional and implication-heavy stories, there's not a lot we can do.UndercoverClassicistT·C15:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist I think you'll be pleased to know that I have moved Galinsky (2012) out of the "Further Reading" section and into the "Sources" section, so that I could cite his work in both the "Early life" section and "Legacy" sections of the article. Hurray! Serious progress is being made, especially since the "Legacy" section needs a serious cleanup. That first paragraph will need many more citations, but paragraphs have been rearranged more logically per subject matter, and Galinsky provides excellent input and a nuanced perspective about thePax Augusta that was sorely missing from the article. Hopefully within a couple months all primary source citations will be diminished or relegated to support status or endnotes, and recently-published reliable sources like Roller, Lewis, Bringmann, and Galinsky will buttress, clarify, and expand on points made by Eck & Takacs.Pericles of AthensTalk12:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion rather than an instruction -- it might be a good idea to try to get one (fairly short) section "done" -- that would mean that reviewers here can get a sense of what the final product will look like, and give a steer if needed.UndercoverClassicistT·C13:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist Not a bad suggestion! In that case the "Name" section at the very beginning should be a top of the list priority. It still needs a bit of work, and I'll make sure everything there has a proper secondary source citation. After that I'll continue work on the "Early life" section. I'm happy to have cited Galinsky where he was truly needed, though.Pericles of AthensTalk14:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist It's only one small step, but I'm happy to announce that the "Name" section has at least been cleaned up, reworded a bit, filled with new citations from secondary sources, and all primary source citations have been moved into endnotes for now. Let me know if this looks suitable, or if further changes must be made to elevate the quality of that section (to meet our rigorous FA standards). Cheers!Pericles of AthensTalk15:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thelifeofan413 Most of those sources seem useful, but which "paragraph" are you referring to here? The first one in the "Legacy" section that I mentioned? That one simply lacks enough citations from reliable sources, with several sentences failing to have inline citations. Most of these statements are obviously factually correct (on the same sort of level as the claim that "George Washington was the first president of the United States"). However, they still require citations per the strict standards of a Featured status article. I'm unfortunately too busy today and perhaps all weekend to delve back into this project, but I will have time next week to provide more citations. If you're able to add even one citation (using the "sfn" shorthand method), that alone would be a serious contribution and a really big help! Thank you.Pericles of AthensTalk20:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 Thanks for letting me know about the review! It was quite a long time ago when I wrote the article and submitted it for Featured status, back when I was in college! I'll have a look at it over the weekend when I have a chance. Hopefully I will have some time next week to work on improving things here.Pericles of AthensTalk11:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Hello! Just letting you know that I'm still working hard to improve the article and made significant edits just today on the "Early life" section, after completing the initial "Name" section. Unfortunately I have a very busy weekend, but I am still fully committed to improving the article and will tackle it more next week when time permits. So far I have made a concerted effort to replace primary source citations with secondary source ones, shifting the former to endnotes where they can still be useful as further references. I plan on finishing the "Early life" section by the end of next week, and will comb through the rest of the article after that. I've been using a variety of sources for that job, and lately I've been relying a lot on Galinsky (2012) for the childhood and upbringing of Octavian. I plan on using a variety of secondary sources, of course, and have beefed up the article here and there with ones that were previously delegated to the "Further reading" section (Galinsky included). Please give me a couple months to make further improvements before final judgments are made. I'm doing all of this in my very limited spare time, so if you know anyone else who could help, please let me know! Regards,Pericles of AthensTalk18:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense Thank you so much for offering help, my friend! Citations are the biggest problem, with primary sources that must be shifted to endnotes in particular, replaced by secondary source citations. I've unfortunately been extremely busy this week, will be busy most of next week too. Only have time tomorrow afternoon/evening to work on the article, plus Monday & Tuesday next week (no time for it after that, not until mid-late June). My plan is to try and finish "Early life" section ("Name" section is done). I'm primarilyusing Galinsky (2012),Cambridge Core viaWikipedia Library, but there are a lot of weeds to untangle. My plan involves creating a better explanation of theFirst Triumvirate, at least mentioning it in the "Early life" section. Current article version does a somewhat poor job of contextualizing it (First Triumvirate not even explicitly mentioned until the "Second Triumvirate" sub-section), Caesar's Civil War, and explaining Julius Caesar's relationship with young Octavian. If you could simply find secondary source citations for replacing already existing statements that only rely on primary sources (like Suetonius and Nicolaus of Damascus), that alone would be a huge help! Cheers.Pericles of AthensTalk19:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to give a huge thanks toUser:Matarisvan for helping move standalone sources into the bibliography. It's an enormous help, since I'm overwhelmed with the work that needs to be done on the article and moving much slower than I have anticipated due to life and work throwing me curveballs in the last couple of weeks. Progress has been much slower than I have wanted, so any little bit helps! I'll try to continue work on the article sometime later this week, but cannot make solid guarantees that the Early life section will be fully complete by the end of this week. I was traveling out of state on vacation last weekend going into Monday, and nearly everyone in my family has a birthday in June. Total nightmare for my wallet and spare time. LOL.Pericles of AthensTalk19:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria It has taken me forever due to my busy work and social life, including summer travels, but I'm proud to announce that both the "Name" and "Early Life" section are finally done and ready for review! I have also made substantial improvements to the subsequent "Rise to Power" section. A huge amount of the primary sources have been shifted to "Notes" and secondary sources now dominate the remaining inline citations seen in the "References" section. The latter has also been cleaned up substantially byUser:Matarisvan who shifted standalone cited sources to the "Sources" section, so huge shout out and kudos to them. Unfortunately, I have virtually no time the rest of this week to work on the article (ugh, typical), but I will try to squeeze in time on Sunday evening (July 13th) to power through the "Rise to Power" section and provide necessary additional secondary source citations to buttress Eck & Takács 2003. Overreliance on the latter source was a major concern listed byUser:AirshipJungleman29, so I will do my best to alleviate that concern now that primary source citations have been obliterated. Kind regards,Pericles of AthensTalk03:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some good work there. A few minor pointers as you go forward:
We don't generally put pronunciation transcriptions in body text, unless the pronunciation is particularly important (e.g. when someone began pronouncing their name differently).
When we're translating a word, rather than mentioning it (e.g. "the Spanish wordcase'house'"), we normally put the translation into brackets -- sohe called himself Princeps Civitatis ('First Citizen') juxtaposed..., or else in some sort of phrase (e.g. "he called himselfPrinceps Civitatis, roughly meaning'First Citizen'").
For reasons I don't quite understand, but probably to do with the template, notes c, n and r have extra close brackets. There may be more: it seems to happen when you refer people to Suetonius.
We need to pick a lane on how we do names (MOS:WORDSASWORDS): seehis rival Mark Antony referred to him asThurinus... Marcus Junius Brutus, one of the assassins of Julius Caesar, referred to Octavian as Octavius [no italics] ...In English he is mainly known by the anglicisation "Octavian"
He transformed Caesar, a cognomen for one branch of the Julian family, into a new family line that began with him: I don't really understand what the difference is here. What wasnew about the way Augustus passed it to his (adopted) son Tiberius, versus the way Caesar's father passed it to him?
the Volscian town of Velletri (Latin: Velitrae: we should generally use names as they stood at at the time (so Vercingetorix wasn't born in France), so just Velitrae would do here. You could add "(modern Velletri)" if you thought lots of people would be helped by that, but I don't think many will.
Note M needs reworking to avoid a parenthetical citation; these are now depreciated.
@UndercoverClassicist Thanks for pointing these out! I will try to fix these issues on Sunday, but unfortunately my workday has begun, along with a relentless week of nonstop social commitments after work and further Summer travel plans out of state. At the very least I'll tackle these concerns by next week. Cheers!Pericles of AthensTalk13:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Sorry, I don't have time to explain it in full since I have to leave my house this very instant (nonstop social commitments when I'm not working, the busiest summer I've had in recent memory, almost wish it was COVID again so I'd have spare time). I will try my very best to tackle this next week, but I can only do tiny edits here and there, and none this weekend unfortunately. I'm happy to be busy with friends and family, but it's making me depressed at the same time, since I am desperate and eager to salvage this article. I have not given up on it, that's a promise. Cheers!Pericles of AthensTalk20:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Unfortunately several issues, and I know I keep asking for extensions, but this last month has been absolutely insane for me, with tumultuous things happening to both friends and family that I had to deal with. That's on top of August travels, road trips, and social plans always getting in the way of me working on this article when I'm not working my regular job. I finally, finally, finally have some spare time starting tomorrow night to work on this! I just can't do anything tonight, because of an insane amount of chores and shopping I absolutely have to do before I die and pass out in my bed in two hours, after a very stressful day at work. The cruel, ironic part is that starting next month I'll have hilarious amounts of free time and less social commitments (despite my birthday being in September), so I can work on this article more at that point. I fear, however, that this FAR process will be closed by then, since it's been open for so long. Please let me know if I have a bit more time to salvage this, now that I can finally sit down and do it this week. I will try my very best to address the issues UndercoverClassicist brought up back in July, and more. I spot a few more primary sources being cited throughout the article, plus areas where Eck (2003) needs to be buttressed with additional sources. Cheers.Pericles of AthensTalk00:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Thank you for letting me know! I had to deal with yet another family issue/emergency this week, unexpectedly, but I will try to tackle some things brought up by UndercoverClassicist right now, before I leave my house to join up with friends and family for a US Labor Day weekend of boating out on the lake and dinner parties. Hopefully sometime next week I can tackle things beyond UndercoverClassicist's latest points/issues raised and sweep away any and all primary sources that are still cited here and there (beyond the "Early life" section).Pericles of AthensTalk19:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist I have been delayed nearly every single day since we last corresponded, for reasons outlined here and others, but I have finally, finally found time when I'm not totally physically exhausted or mentally demoralized to address the minor points you raised in July. I'm not happy at all about the solution I had to make for Note M and removal of the parenthetical citation. If you have a better solution please let me know, other than just coupling it with a regular citation placed before it (to haphazardly specify the precise Galinsky page number). Please let me know if I missed anything in the "Name" and "Early life" section, but I addressed all the specific issues you raised, even the thing about the cognomen Caesar (clarifying that he continued its use as a name and that it eventually became a standard imperial title, something that is also explained later in the "Legacy" section). I will comb through subsequent sections of the article next week, but I'm swamped for the rest of the weekend, unfortunately, and already have friends and family blowing up my phone asking about my whereabouts and why I'm not with them right now to prepare for our lake trip (LOL). I can't even get a minute to work on this in peace. Hope to hear from you soon!Pericles of AthensTalk20:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Name" section looks mostly good:
I have some reservations about so many pronunciation guides, not all of them massively helpful (do wereally need "Thurinus" but not "Ceasar"?), in article text -- here I would follow the advice inMOS:LEADCLUTTER if any are felt really indispensible.
We shouldn't attributeCicero and some other contemporaries called him Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus as well as "the young Caesar"according to historian Karl Galinsky, as this isn't a matter of opinion -- it's either in Cicero's extant works or it isn't.
It's not totally clear what's meant by the bracketed namesGaius Julius Caesar Octavianus andImperator Caesar divi filius Augustus. Honestly, given the text that follows, I think you could just delete them both.
Ditto Early Life:
As note F is quite long, I would followWP:PAREN and replace the parenthetical citations with foonotes.
his now lost autobiography: hyphen innow-lost.
Note M needs a citation in the note.
Note N looks very strange with the archive link.
College of Pontiffs (Rome's college of priests) is very misleading: it was far from Rome'sonly college of priests. It was probably the most prestigious (certainly the most prestigious open to men), and you can probably find a source for that.
Note R is almost entirely cited to a primary source -- the same rules apply as in body text.
the toga virilis 'toga of manhood' vsmagister equitum ("master of the cavalry"): note formatting inconsistency. I think brackets and single quotations is probably the way to go: following the letter ofMOS:GLOSS only really works when also in the realm ofMOS:WORDSASWORDS.
@UndercoverClassicist Thank you very much for responding! I will try to address all of these points this week the moment I get a chance. I'm at work right now, and am busy virtually every evening and night this week, but I will squeeze in whatever time I can to address this. Also yes, I agree about the point about Cicero. Cheers!Pericles of AthensTalk13:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: great news, @Nikkimaria! Next week I will have tons of time to work on this article, but this weekend is crazy for me since it's my big 40th birthday celebration today. Starting Monday I should have loads of free time to work on this article, with social commitments after work finally clearing up and becoming more sporadic. I can finally salvage this article and give it the attention it deserves! Cheers.Pericles of AthensTalk19:09, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: Hello! Thanks once again for providing the list of suggestions above. I'm confused by a couple of them, but I will try my best to address each point. I removed the titles/names in parentheses as requested, and removed the mention about Karl Galinsky for Cicero. I'm not quite sure what needs to be done with the name "Thurinus," though I think it is worth mentioning in the "Name" section (provides context for how contemporary Romans used naming conventions in subtle disparaging ways for political purposes).
As for parenthetical citations,WP:PAREN states that "this also does not affect explanatory footnotes," but I will still follow your advice by changing parenthetical citations within footnotes to shorthand citations (I've had technical difficulties doing that recently, causing errors somehow, but it seems to be working okay now). I have completed this task for the "Early life" section, and did the same for another footnote in the "Heir to Caesar" subsection. I will comb through the rest of the article very soon for other instances.
I'm not sure how to handle the archive link in Note N; are you saying it should be removed? I removed the statement "Rome's college of priests" per your request. I also added Galinsky as a secondary source within Note R, and only mentionVelleius Paterculus as a reference for further information (alongside Suetonius). I have also followed your advice about consistent formatting, placing 'toga of manhood' and "master of the cavalry" within parentheses and within single quotation marks. I hope that you find these changes to be suitable, and I look forward to addressing further concerns. I'll be rather busy tonight, but I will have more time tomorrow to work on this article. Cheers!Pericles of AthensTalk19:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist @Nikkimaria Just updating you here at the end of September to inform you that I've done a bunch of work in cleaning up citations, moving further primary sources into footnotes, rewording various passages, and providing consistent formatting for Latin phrases translated into English, per the suggestions above. However, the "Legacy" is still quite a mess and requires serious work with finding citations, especially for the sub-sections "Month of August" and "Creation of Italia." The "Physical appearances" section needs drastic work and reduction of reliance on primary sources, which should all be relegated to footnotes per our discussion. I'm still working on all of this, but it's difficult as usual to find spare time for it! I wish I had a hired team of ten editors working on this article. There's still a few things to untangle, especially towards the end, but major progress has once again been made.Pericles of AthensTalk23:55, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very sad news, though, it looks like I no longer have access to Galinsky via Cambridge Core, even with the Wikipedia login. I suddenly need to belong to some institution to gain access to it. Damn! I really needed it still. LOL. @Nikkimaria @UndercoverClassicist any advice on how to access it otherwise or other works if Cambridge Corps is suddenly being difficult? I was not done using it. Perhaps I could find time to visit my local university library? That's quite a trek, though, and you know me (don't have much spare time for anything these days).Pericles of AthensTalk00:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the Cambridge Companion or the Introduction to the Life? Either way, it'll be fine -- shoot me an email via Wikipedia with the list and I'll send you the files you need.UndercoverClassicistT·C14:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist Sorry, my week has been totally insane after someone rear ended my car and basically wrecked my trunk door at the worst time of year for that (and the other driver has expired insurance, LOL, great). Anyways, yes, it's Galinsky'sAugustus: Introduction to the Life of an Emperor from 2012 that I need. I really need chapters 2, 3 and the index for now, if I'm going to tackle the next section of the article here in earnest. I'll send you an email!Pericles of AthensTalk19:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the "Month of August" subsection, one of the worst in the article, removing the primary source cited there and the uncited speculative comments. I provided two new secondary sources, both of them online: aBritish Museum webpage and anEncyclopedia Britannica entry. I'm not sure if either of these are cited correctly or what standard I should even follow, so any help with that would be greatly appreciated, if anyone knows how to do it properly.Pericles of AthensTalk20:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also removed the entire "Creation of Italia" subsection for now, not because it's untrue, but because I cannot immediately find a reliable scholarly source for all the claims there, and we cannot just use a sole foreign language source as the only cited source. The editor who added this in also did not follow the chosen citation method (shorthand citations, sfn).Pericles of AthensTalk20:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist Hi again, could you please send me an email with the requested parts of Galinsky (2012)? I am very eager to continue working on this article, but I no longer have access to high quality sources, and I want to continue using Galinsky in particular. Thank you.Pericles of AthensTalk19:15, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, UndercoverClassicist! I emailed you back to thank you there as well. Much appreciated, and I'll jump right back into this on Monday. Also, I visited my local university library and was able to scan the entire book of Patricia Southern'sAugustus published by Reuters in 2014! Very happy about that and will be citing that in addition to Galinsky (2012).Pericles of AthensTalk02:14, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh! I have a new job and just got past onboarding phase, so I'm busy with that and family issues, and personal issues helping my girlfriend, and it's Halloween season so each of the next three weekends are stacked with activities for me, but my schedule will be less brutal in early November. I will try to sneak in more work on this article by Monday when I have spare time again. Good thing is I have Patricia Southern's book and Galinsky's book, and with those two sources I should be fine.Pericles of AthensTalk14:20, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to find time to work on this, but have been busy lately due to Halloween events every weekend, and now it's literally Halloween! This weekend is going to be insane for me, so I won't even have a second to work on this article. Hopefully by Tuesday I can resume work without having to worry about social engagements after work.Pericles of AthensTalk18:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: As usual, my time these days is being completely sucked dry by my girlfriend, by health issues, by social commitments, by the need to do chores and shopping that just leaves me exhausted, and by other projects I'm working on outside of work. I will try to set aside time this weekend to work on this article, but just reading through Southern's enormous book alone seems like a daunting, miserable task that I don't have time for. I really fear that I cannot save this article, and I really genuinely need someone's help with it. Can anyone help, please?Pericles of AthensTalk15:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist @Nikkimaria It is by no means complete, but the "Rise to Power" section has been dramatically improved with citations from Galinsky (2012). Thanks once again, UndercoverClassicist, for providing me with necessary PDFs of that source! Hopefully I can find time tonight to skim through Pat Southern's book and cite it in the article to bring greater balance to the variety of sources cited here (not just citations from Eck and Takacs dominating multiple sub-sections in a row). As it stands, the vast majority of primary sources have also been removed from inline citations found in the prose body. They are now mostly relegated to certain sub-sections of the "Legacy" section and the "Physical appearance" section, though I see a couple tags were added in the "Sole ruler of Rome" section indicating that primary source citations need to be replaced with secondary ones. I'll address that as soon as I can.Pericles of AthensTalk21:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a perfect fix for either situation, but I removed some of the primary source speculation in the "Sole ruler of Rome" section, removed an unnecessary uncited statement there that was recently tagged, and placed primary source material found in the "Physical appearance and official images" section into a footnote (with only secondary sources used for inline citations there).Pericles of AthensTalk14:32, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist @Nikkimaria I very much want to cite the 2nd edition of Patricia Southern'sAugustus published in 2014 by Routledge. The only problem is that the first edition of this book published in 1998 is cited several times throughout the article. In reading my version, I have confirmed that the page numbers do not align at all, and the 2nd edition contains additional materials and appendices (one that even mentions restoration work on the Mausoleum of Augustus at the beginning of "the twenty-first century," i.e. obviously after the original publication in 1998). What can I do here? I'm not sure what the guidelines or protocols are for citing two different editions of the same book. It would have been an enormous waste of my time going to the library and scanning the entire 2nd edition only to not cite it here a single time. I'll continue with Galinsky (2012) in the meantime, but I'm not happy about this. :(Pericles of AthensTalk14:50, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can cite both editions, or you can replace the earlier edition with the newer one - either is fine as long as the material is supported. (And assuming that the material from the first edition is still appropriate).Nikkimaria (talk)00:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist I'm happy to announce that I'm finished working on the entire Rise to Power section! I can cite a few additional sources like Southern here and there, but ultimately the problems raised in this review have been addressed, at least for that section and the previous ones. I'm now moving on to the next section on the role rulership of Augustus.Pericles of AthensTalk20:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of big changes have been made to this article, including a huge amount of citations from Southern (2014) across various sections, and additional information on everything from building projects in Rome to wars against theSabaeans in South Arabia andKushites in Sudan and Lower Egypt. The sub-section on proscriptions looks immensely better than it did before. The only sub-section that still needs serious cleanup and work is the "residences" one in the Legacy section, though I've already managed to cite Southern (2014) there for theHouse of Augustus on thePalatine Hill. I need help with sources for some of the other residences of Augustus.Pericles of AthensTalk06:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth pointing out that the link between the structure known today as the "House of Augustus" and the man himself isincredibly tenuous -- have a look at the article on theTemple of Apollo Palatinus (shameless self-promotion alert) for a little on this. Essentially, when it was first excavated, it sort-of matched the description given in Suetonius of Augustus's house (and I think we should make explicit that this is what we're basing the idea of a modest house upon), so we know Augustus lived there because it matches Suetonius's description. Further excavations revealed that it didn't actually look much that house at all, but now it was decided that Suetonius may have been wrong, because we know that the building is Augustus's house, so it doesn't matter if it matches the description. You may seethe problem here!UndercoverClassicistT·C07:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist Hi again! Indeed and agreed about the so-calledHouse of Augustus. I just recently made sure to stress the point by Southern 2014: p. 336 that the identification of the home as one belonging to Augustus is still "not certain." Also, @User:Ifly6 has been a great help of late adding newly cited sources to the article, including Hinard 1985 about the proscriptions of the Second Triumvirate.Pericles of AthensTalk20:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ifly6 Great suggestion! Per your request, I have edited the article to include input from Bingham 2021, with an inline citation and footnote supporting Wiseman's contentions about the identification of Augustus' home. Lately I have also been using Galinsky 2012 and Southern 2014 to buttress, reorganize, and amend various statements using Eck & Takács 2003 as the cited source. In the process, I thankfully spotted a typo with an incorrect page number for Eck & Takács 2003 in the "Change to Augustus" subsection, an error that must have been introduced when the article's citations were converted toshortened footnotes. It's a good thing this FA review was started byUser:AirshipJungleman29, otherwise I would have never revisited this article and nitpicked it enough to notice it! The article is in a much improved state as a result of this lengthy FAR process, with massive improvements made to every section. Kudos to @Nikkimaria for allowing so many extensions, it is much appreciated.Pericles of AthensTalk05:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 Thank you kindly! I will certainly let you know when and if I need a particular source. TheWikipedia Library is a fantastic venue for accessing various resources, but unfortunately I lost access toCambridge Core sources specifically.User:UndercoverClassicist had to share some materials with me after that happened. At the moment I'm still plowing through Galinsky 2012 and Southern 2014, and have used other sources lately like Burstein 2004, Bringmann 2007, and Roller 2010 to shore up claims about Antony and Cleopatra. I only had snippet access onGoogle Books to David Shotter'sAugustus Caesar (2005, 2nd ed.), so if you somehow have full access to that then that would be most welcome if you could share (since it's already cited a bit in the first two sections). I never had access to Colin Wells' The Roman Empire (1995), but it's a somewhat important source considering how it has been cited for various claims about the second settlement of Augustus in 23 BC. Both Shotter 2005 and Wells 1995 don't appear to be available in the Wikipedia Library, at least in a cursory search. Any help with these sources or others you might have access to would be greatly appreciated.Pericles of AthensTalk17:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It brings me great pleasure, though, to say that, while I and others are still improving things, we have at least adequately if not fully addressed some of the initial concerns raised in this review.
1) The "heavy overuse of one source (Eck & Takács 2003)" is now a largely moot point considering the wealth of citations from other secondary sources like Tatum 2024, Lewis 2023, Wiseman 2022, Southern 2014, Galinsky 2012, Roller 2010, Lindsay 2009, Bringmann 2007, Welsby 1996, etc.
2) The "use of dated secondary sources, some of which are nearing a century old" has at least been addressed and older secondary sources like Syme 1939 are mainly used to buttress statements that involve the citation of other secondary sources (though for legacy purposes Scott 1933 and Syme 1939's inputs are still occasionally included, andTheodor Mommsen's opinion is mentioned but his works are not directly cited).
3) The "uncritical use of ancient primary sources as citations" has now been fully addressed, I think, with singular use of primary sources as inline citations wiped clean from the article. Only a smattering of them are included in footnotes here and there (coupled with modern secondary source evaluation of those ancient primary sources; for instance, see the "Residences" subsection).
4) The "underuse of high-quality modern sources, some of which lie unused in the 'Further reading' section" has at least been addressed somewhat with the recent addition of many new high-quality modern sources, which @User:Ifly6 and I have added. The 'Further reading' section is always going to contain at least some great sources that I simply cannot access, because I'm not currently working as an academic, and am using anything I can get my hands on.
5) The concern about there not being "enough detail on legacy and assessment in post-classical politics" has been addressed somewhat, with recent expansions of the "Legacy" section, though the specific issue of post-classical politics still needs to be fleshed out and given its due. That's perhaps the biggest remaining sore point of the whole article, but thankfully I have some sources that speak on the issue a bit, and I will be citing them shortly. Stay tuned!Pericles of AthensTalk16:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to fully address post-classical politics, but in the "Critical analysis" subsection I have at least added some information about shifting attitudes towards Augustus in modern scholarship from the 1930s until now (with a heightened focus on Augustus's seizure of state powers by academics who witnessed the rise of fascism in Europe on the eve of WWII). I have also mentioned the ongoing academic debate about the levels of censorship versus free speech in the Roman Empire under Augustus. The article is otherwise very solid now, with issues about sourcing arguably fully addressed by this point. Although post-classical politics is hardly addressed, later states such as theEastern Roman Empire and theHoly Roman Empire are at least mentioned, as are the thoughts ofMontesquieu,Jonathan Swift,Thomas Gordon, andThomas Blackwell on Augustus.Pericles of AthensTalk14:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist As you know, I do not have access to the later chapters of Galinsky 2012. Could you either help to cite them in the article or, if you're pressed for time in your personal life, please share them via email? In particular I need ones that cover Augustan artwork/literature and post-classical politics. I presume these include chapter 6 ('Cultural Vitality') and also chapter 8 ('The Final Days and an Assessment')? I'm not quite sure. On Google Books, the "Illustrations" list hints that pages for important art pieces like theGemma Augustea (p. 132) are covered in chapter 5 ('Augustus at Home: Friends and Family'). In either case, the article at least now has a properly cited mention of how the adoptive nameCaesar forms the root of later regnal titles such as the Russianczar and Germankaiser. This article is thankfully a fundamentally different beast than it was in April when the FAR was initiated, and I would say it currently lives up to the high standards of FA articles. The prose body has also ballooned in size a bit, but that's only because the original article still lacked some necessary context and scholarly analysis of events. The article now also has extensive explanatory footnotes for aiding reader understanding of the topic and the sources being cited.Pericles of AthensTalk15:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
UsingAdrian Goldsworthy'sAugustus: First Emperor of Rome (2014, Yale University Press), I was able to provide further citations in various spots and even expand the article a bit to talk about the reception of Augustus in modern media: theater, film, television, and novels. I also expanded the "Critical analysis" subsection to include information from Santangelo & Vitello 2025 about the importance ofRonald Syme'sThe Roman Revolution in the academic world during the rise of fascism and totalitarian regimes (published in September 1939, right at the start of WWII). This article is in desperate need of review by others here in regards to its elevated level of quality, recent additions, overall direction, room for further improvement, etc. Thankfully, I feel as though the task of salvaging it is largely complete.Pericles of AthensTalk08:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm telling ya, this baby's got everything under the hood. It revs up high with 300 horsepower! Equal to the power of 75quadrigae ifchariot racing is your thing, buddy! It's gotShakespeare. It's gotMontesquieu. It's got a summary of the impact ofRonald Syme's works on academia being tempered byAdrian Goldsworthy's input and analysis. Where else are you going to findOliver Cromwell,Mussolini,Hitler, andStalin all in the same place? We've got 'em all! Believe you me, pal, we beat the competition by a country mile!
Just today I created a new small sub-section on post-classical painting. It's not extensive and cites only two prominent examples, but this article is big enough as it is. Lengthier explanations belong in sub-articles such ascultural depictions of Augustus where they can be given more thorough treatment. I think this is most certainly the last sub-section that should be added to the article, which is now fully comprehensive.Pericles of AthensTalk16:27, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 @UndercoverClassicist @Ifly6 The article is now very comprehensive in covering all the major aspects of Augustus and his reign, with perhaps only one topic that is neglected in the "Critical analysis" subsection: how Augustus was perceived during the Middle Ages and Renaissance (aside from a few mentions of Shakespeare, though he lived at the very tail end of the Renaissance and obviously does not embody all views about Augustus during the era). Unfortunately I do not have access tothis wonderful book that covers the topic extensively:
CAVALIERI, Marco, Pierre ASSENMAKER, Mattia CAVAGNA, and David ENGELS, eds.Augustus through the Ages: Receptions, Readings and Appropriations of the Historical Figure of the First Roman Emperor. Peeters Publishers, 2022.https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.10574832.
If anyone knows how to access it or can cite it for us, that would be swell! I also don't have full access toMary Beard'sTwelve Caesars: Images of Power from the Ancient World to the Modern (2021) cited in the article, which could also greatly help us with this topic. I've only managed to glean things from snippets on Google Books, though.
Otherwise I think this article has risen to the level of FA quality. At the very least it covers early modern/Enlightenment, 18th century, 19th century, 20th century, and 21st century views, and of course details some important contemporary and ancient views about Augustus. It mentions the Eastern Romans but unfortunately does not explain how Eastern Roman emperors, theologians, or historians viewed Augustus. I would require assistance with that, though the major biographical works on Augustus cited in the article barely mention these topics if at all, so I'm not sure how much weight I should give them. Goldsworthy and Mary Beard are the only ones who touch upon the subject to any significant degree.Pericles of AthensTalk18:36, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you can narrow it to a chapter or so (or, say, a series of pages given in the index), the good people atWP:RX will almost certainly be able to help. I've asked for some really obscure things on there and have only rarely come away empty-handed.UndercoverClassicistT·C07:31, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist Unfortunately, and frustratingly, Google Books is no longer showing the index for Mary Beard's book, so I can no longer say with certainty which pagesDante Alighieri andGeoffrey Chaucer are to be found (or even the specific chapters, since their titles are extremely vague). That's a huge shame. However, thanks to further poking and prodding, and a little help from @User:Johnbod, I was able to add a statement about the legend of theTiburtine Sibyl from the 13th centuryGolden Legend, citing two different sources. I also added further information in the Legacy's "Overview" subsection about how the world map of Vipsanius Agrippa, allegedly finished by Augustus (most likely an erroneous assumption by Pliny), influenced later medieval maps. In the postclassical visual arts subsection I also added an example of Augustus being featured on theHereford Mappa Mundi.Pericles of AthensTalk16:55, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As for the book edited by Cavalieri et al. there are so many book chapters I'd love to get my hands on, but if I really wanted to boil it down to a handful, it would be these ones, just for the medieval period alone:
Reyniers, Jeroen. “The Iconography of Emperor Augustus with the Tiburtine Sibyl in the Low Countries.: An Overview.” InAugustus through the Ages: Receptions, Readings and Appropriations of the Historical Figure of the First Roman Emperor, edited by Marco CAVALIERI, Pierre ASSENMAKER, Mattia CAVAGNA, and David ENGELS, 209–36. Peeters Publishers, 2022.https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.10574832.12.
de Beer, Susanna. “The Memory of Augustus and Augustan Rome in Humanist Latin Poetry.” InAugustus through the Ages: Receptions, Readings and Appropriations of the Historical Figure of the First Roman Emperor, edited by Marco CAVALIERI, Pierre ASSENMAKER, Mattia CAVAGNA, and David ENGELS, 239–60. Peeters Publishers, 2022.https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.10574832.13.
Gáldy, Andrea M. “A Role Model Twice Removed?: Cosimo I de’ Medici as New Augustus.” InAugustus through the Ages: Receptions, Readings and Appropriations of the Historical Figure of the First Roman Emperor, edited by Marco CAVALIERI, Pierre ASSENMAKER, Mattia CAVAGNA, and David ENGELS, 273–90. Peeters Publishers, 2022.https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.10574832.15.
Let alone these two chapters, which cover his reception during late antiquity during the Western and Eastern Roman Empires, and during the late Renaissance with Shakespeare, respectively:
Burgersdijk, Diederik. “Augustus’ Fame in Late Antiquity: From Constantine to Theodosius.” InAugustus through the Ages: Receptions, Readings and Appropriations of the Historical Figure of the First Roman Emperor, edited by Marco CAVALIERI, Pierre ASSENMAKER, Mattia CAVAGNA, and David ENGELS, 131–48. Peeters Publishers, 2022.https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.10574832.8.
Oakley-Brown, Elizabeth. “Caesar Augustus and Shakespeare.” InAugustus through the Ages: Receptions, Readings and Appropriations of the Historical Figure of the First Roman Emperor, edited by Marco CAVALIERI, Pierre ASSENMAKER, Mattia CAVAGNA, and David ENGELS, 261–72. Peeters Publishers, 2022.https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.10574832.14.
@UndercoverClassicist Now, is it absolutely necessary to have these cited in the article? Probably not at this stage, since his reception by religious scholars and even mapmakers during the Middle Ages are now highlighted a bit in the article. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to ask the good folks atWP:RX for access to these chapters, which I will do, but I don't think their exclusion from the article in its present state should be used to determine its FA status or not. The article is also very large now, and I'm worried about expanding it further lest other editors raise concerns about itsWP:LENGTH.Pericles of AthensTalk18:25, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have amended and expanded the lead section somewhat, since it did not properly reflect the body of the article and all its most salient points. For instance, it said nothing about Octavian's march on Rome in 43 BC during theWar of Mutina when he became Rome's youngest consul, the proscriptions during the Liberator's civil war, the exile of Lepidus after opposing Octavian in Sicily ("sidelined" is an incredibly vague way to say this), Augustus's resignation from the consulship during the second settlement, or anything involving art and literature (which dominates much of the Legacy section).Pericles of AthensTalk07:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ifly6 Relying on your work in the article War of Mutina, I have added and cited Rawson 1992 and Golden 2013 a bit, and will provide additional citations from them when I get the chance. Thanks for pointing that out!Pericles of AthensTalk16:44, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One other issue: is it okay that this article relies mostly ontemplate:sfn for inline citations but includes occasional use oftemplate:harvnb for long explanatory footnotes (i.e. inside "<ref></ref>" brackets), whentemplate:efn is largely used for that purpose? This article uses a mixture of all three for explanatory footnotes, it seems, though I'm not sure if we should have a hard delineation for their roles, or if harvnb should be replaced entirely by efn. It's not something consequential enough to determine the article's FA status, right?Pericles of AthensTalk22:08, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's not usually a problem: writing{{sfn|author|date|page}} comes out the same as writing<ref>{{harvnb|author|date|page}}. Plenty of FAs use SFN as standard and the second approach when they need to do something more complicated.UndercoverClassicistT·C22:19, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't see a problem with the mixture. They generate the same output regardless, with{{sfn}} as a less verbose (and auto-deduplicating) version of{{harvnb}} wrapped in ref tags.Ifly6 (talk)22:50, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Several statements are supported by multiple references, many of which are redundant. If the aim is to maintain a living article that remains open to improvement by other editors, the references should be significantly trimmed.Borsoka (talk)04:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: which policy or guideline are you thinking of here?WP:OVERCITE (an essay) warns against adding too many blue footnotes, but that's not an issue here, as all of the multi-cites arebundled into single footnotes. Even if one source will do to prove a point, there's no harm in showing that someone else believes it too, especially if there areWP:FRINGE sources that disagree with it and it's useful to demonstrate where the scholarly consensus is.UndercoverClassicistT·C07:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes,the same essay states (emphasis mine): "If there is a good reason to keep multiple citations, ... clutter may be avoided by merging the citations into a single footnote". For example, the sentence concerning Octavian’s birth is supported by six separate references, with a further two added in an additional footnote. It is difficult to see a clear justification for such a small forest of references, which moreover complicates both the development and the review of the article.Borsoka (talk)10:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
PericlesofAthens's reference below to "a pain in regards to shifting around citations from different sources" ([1]) illustrates the drawbacks of the present citation style. Under normal circumstances, moving text and citations within an article should not present any difficulty.Borsoka (talk)14:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Avery limited source review suggests that a significant number of the citations (in this instance, three out of six) may not in fact verify the text. I therefore recommend a thorough review of sources throughout the article and the removal of citations that are misleading or unsupported.Borsoka (talk)02:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your so-called "source review" revealed one typo and clerical error which has now been fixed, one of your two major points has been completely dispelled and disproven by a careful rereading of Galinsky 2012 (which you misrepresented, mistakenly or deliberately, as shown below), and your rigid but also inaccurate interpretation of guidelines such asWP:OVERCITE doesn't even stand up to scrutiny. Overall you're not contributing much here except to point out the article needed to be trimmed, which has now been the case with a severe reduction from ~18,000 to ~13,000 words and creation of sub-articlesRise of Augustus andReign of Augustus (and expansion ofEarly life of Augustus). Your odd insistence that statements needless verification from sources not only contradicts your source review insistence but also has no standing in Wiki guidelines (one might say the gleeful contradiction you've created is an example of gaslighting/trolling at this point). It is irrelevant to the bundled citation method chosen for this article, andUser:UndercoverClassicist is right to point outWP:FRINGE is often a concern when multiple sources are not cited.Pericles of AthensTalk16:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka Thanks for letting me know. I was worried about that! Unfortunately the things that will have to get cut or moved into footnotes will be the lengthy scholarly analysis instead of the crucial timeline of events. A shame, but it must be done to preserve FA status. @Ifly6 @UndercoverClassicist Please be advised that, as a result of this warning, my next moves for this article will be to move scholarly analysis mainly to footnotes. This will heavily affect subsections like "Critical analysis" and the "Sole ruler of Rome" section.Pericles of AthensTalk18:20, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: the broad point here is correct -- the article is very long and would benefit from reworking perWP:SUMMARYSTYLE, perhaps by making use of daughter articles (e.g.Constitutional reforms of Augustus) to shift the details of individual sections -- but I think your phrasing is starker than can be justified from the guidelines. Specifically, "it must be reduced to under 12,000 words or it should be delisted" is not a tenable reading ofWP:SIZE.The size guidelines are explicitly stated asuseful rules of thumb rather than absolutes, and give 15,000 words as the point at which an articleAlmost certainly should be divided or trimmed (emphasis mine). The guideline for articles over 9,000 words readsProbably should be divided or trimmed,though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material. (emphasis mine).UndercoverClassicistT·C07:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my wording may be rather stark. However, I do think we should take our readers' expectations into account when deciding on an article's length and scope. A reader with a general interest in Augustus' life and legacy is unlikely to want a very long or highly detailed, essay-like treatment here. Those who seek more detail can be directed towards dedicated sub-articles. In doing so, we also respect our readers' time.Borsoka (talk)09:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the matter is more of moving the analysis to other articles rather than just to footnotes. Agreed in all points with UC.Ifly6 (talk)16:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka In that case, it's a good thing I have created a new sub-articleReign of Augustus and linked it in this article and others. I will continue to trim the main articleAugustus, but yeah, @Ifly6 @UndercoverClassicist make good points about the flexibility of the guidelines now that I've reread them. I have also been making a concerted effort to reduce theWP:SIZE of the article by usingWP:SUMMARYSTYLE. It was painful, but I even moved the Eck and Takacs blockquote into a footnote to help reduce the size of the article, and have been cutting down on details in various sections. That being said, I've also moved the full amount of details of the "Sole Ruler of Rome" section into the new sub-articleReign of Augustus, and even included the footnotes in the prose of this article to flesh it out the prose of the sub-article. That help to further distinguish it from the main one.Pericles of AthensTalk01:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My main point is that we should take our readers' expectations into account when deciding on an article's length. I believe that Augustus's life can be adequately summarised in fewer than 9,000 words, and that only a very small number of figures would genuinely require more than that.Borsoka (talk)02:05, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka I think that 9,000 is not a reasonable expectation, especially given the enormous importance of Augustus in Western history, necessitating a sizable "Legacy" section all on its own, and the different stages of his life. I place Augustus up there with figures likeAlexander the Great andGenghis Khan, rulers who left a profound impact on the world and thus need a comprehensive treatment from various angles about their respective lives and reigns. This isn't an article about some lesser known figure in Roman history likeCincinnatus orPupienus, as you seem to think. For that matter, this article only reflects how Augustus is treated in academia, andWP:WEIGHT is given to leading scholars, scholarly consensus, and the various topics that they have decided to cover about Augustus. To me that's more important than our varied individual opinions on the matter.Pericles of AthensTalk17:03, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also keep in mind that I'm actively trimming the article by placing content into footnotes and sub-articles, so an effort is being made to get this article back down to a more reasonable size, closer to 12,000 words. Just yesterday I moved information about Tiberius and Augustus's deification into a footnote and summarized Shotter's scholarly analysis in fewer words. This is not an easy task given the narrative that has been weaved throughout the article. It will take time, effort, and judgment about which details can be deemed of lesser importance than others.Pericles of AthensTalk17:12, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's an important distinction here -- putting material into footnotes doesn't do anything for the article length, so (while it might help readability) isn't a good solution to the article being over length, especially as we all seem to be talking about shifting about 3000 words -- even for a very long article, that would be a truly insane amount of material to have in EFNs. The average Wikipedia article isabout 700 words, so we'd be cramming just over four typical articles into the footnote section alone.UndercoverClassicistT·C20:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist It seems that @Ifly6 has pretty much trimmed them to the point where that is no longer an issue, thankfully. Furthermore, I have shifted all removed portions (i.e. before the editing/reworking), including lengthy footnotes, over to my newly created sub-articlesRise of Augustus andReign of Augustus, as well as toEarly life of Augustus (which I have also expanded dramatically, and it had no cited sources outside of primary sources before I touched it). Overall I'm happy with this solution, especially since the Legacy section has remained largely intact.Pericles of AthensTalk15:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing withGeorge Washington andJefferson Davis, I agree the article should be shortened considerably. The amount of material to cover is large; I would target definitely less than 15,000. The amount of material in notes also is excessive in terms of byte length.Ifly6 (talk)18:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I started trimming today. Already the length has been reduced from over 17,000 words to some 15,300. Further trimming remains necessary.Ifly6 (talk)02:05, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ifly6 I appreciate the effort here, but please pause for the time being so I can shift material that you've deleted over to appropriate sub-articles likeEarly life of Augustus, which I'm doing right now using previous versions of this article and your most recent edits. I was afraid this was going to happen quickly with other editors taking their stab at the process, which is why I moved swiftly to create theReign of Augustus article. It appears to have been an extremely wise move given recent edits. Please respect the amount of time, effort, and research that was put into the creation of this article, all in my spare time outside of my work life, family life, social life, etc. I was planning on making aRise of Augustus sub-article and shifting material there before you started deleting vast swaths of that section as well. Overall, though, I will admit that the footnotes are excessive, but they can be used to beef up related sub-articles, not just bulldozed into oblivion.Pericles of AthensTalk04:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ifly6 With that being said, thanks for tidying things, retaining the most salient points, and using summary style here and there. I only take issue with "paragraphs" that are two sentences in length that you created (three sentences is a minimum, in my opinion, otherwise it just looks...odd. LOL). The article does admittedly look nicely trimmed now. I have finished up the task of moving lost/deleted materials over toEarly life of Augustus. Hopefully sometime tomorrow I will have time to fix the redirect of "Rise of Augustus" to the main article and flesh out a real one for it as a sub-article. I absolutely do not want to lose the huge amount of work and research we did to create that section, which unfortunately is now the case following the trimming. Also, I get that some statements about Atia are perhaps better suited for the "Early life" article, but did we really have to remove the statement about her death and funeral that Octavian funded during his consulship? The scrubbing of Atia from the article is a bit much, in my opinion, especially since she was such a domineering force in his sickly teenage youth, essentially bossing him around and telling him that he was simply too ill to partake in military campaigns of his great-uncle Julius Caesar. Readers of this article who know nothing about Augustus will now be totally ignorant of that aspect of his early life, if this article is the only thing they ever read about him.Pericles of AthensTalk06:39, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ifly6 One last thing: please be extremely careful when it comes to copyediting and condensing information. Some of your edits have introduced major mistakes and grammatical issues, such asthis sentence that I had to fix (I also fixed other issues in previous edits, including spaces between punctuation, incorrect punctuation, and incorrect spelling, e.g. "ROme").Pericles of AthensTalk06:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, though, I will admit that the footnotes are excessive, but they can be used to beef up related sub-articles, not just bulldozed into oblivion: this is still true: you can go into the article history and pull them from there. (Almost) nothing is ever irrevocably deleted on Wikipedia.UndercoverClassicistT·C07:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
CAVALIERI, M., ASSENMAKER, P., CAVAGNA, M., & ENGELS, D. (Eds.). (2022).Augustus through the Ages: Receptions, Readings and Appropriations of the Historical Figure of the First Roman Emperor. Peeters Publishers.https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.10574832
I was at least able to cite the book chapter by Brizzi 2022 for the "Theater, film, televised series, and novels" subsection, so that it doesn't solely contain citations from Goldsworthy 2014. I'll cite a few more chapters sparingly, especially those about how Augustus was perceived during late antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance. I was also able to cite the introduction chapter by Cavalieri et. al. 2022 for the buildings/architecture subsection.Pericles of AthensTalk20:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka @Ifly6 @UndercoverClassicist I'm happy to announce that with all the recent trimmings (including various edits I've made recently to the "Legacy" section and others), the article has been reduced to roughly 13,670 words of prose (excluding theWP:LEAD section, of course, which amounts to ~580 words, but which the size tool unfortunately includes in the estimate). In my view that is a significant reduction. It now falls within theWP:SIZE parameters of 9,000 to 15,000 words, which is aflexible guideline, not an absolute as noted above. Essential details have been retained in the Legacy section, while superfluous comments have been removed, and verbose statements reworded.Pericles of AthensTalk18:23, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on the substantial reduction so far. However, the article still exceeds 14,000 words. I think we should be mindful of our readers' time and aim to offer a concise, encyclopaedia-style overview. For example, the "Early life" section still contains some redundant material, and I am confident it could be reduced by around 25% without any real loss of substance. If this section is broadly representative of the article as a whole, the total length could be brought down, with relatively little effort, to around 10,500 words (which would still be considerable).Borsoka (talk)03:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka Uh, are you sure you're estimating that right? I'm using the size tool andnot including the lead section (see my post above). I was able just now to trim a few details from the Early life section and a bit from the "Sole Ruler of Rome" section (in particular the subsection about his authority within thepomerium).
I think your estimate of 25% is more than extremely optimistic, it's unrealistic for retaining the FA quality of this article. That's especially after the article has already been trimmed of all the fat and excess detail, even in footnotes. The only things that remain are truly crucial points about his life narrative and profound impact on politics, society, culture, architectural landscapes, etc. that are necessary for achieving aWP:COMPREHENSIVE account of his life, reflecting secondary sources.
I mean no offense, but have you genuinely read the article? Exactly which specific parts can be removed without seriously depreciating the quality and damaging the comprehensiveness of the article? Please highlight specific sentences. Frankly, at this point, given the huge reductions in prose size and creation of sub-articles for that purpose, I'm more concerned now with satisfying the last point made by @AirshipJungleman29, who started the FAR process. In his view the article wasn't long enough and didn't include enough details about post-classical politics. I think I've remedied that, but removal of material is not going to help satisfy him and other reviewers who hold those concerns, just because the article is 13,000 instead of 10,000 words or so. I think that's a trivial matter after so many trimmings.Pericles of AthensTalk02:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note - thank you for all your work on the articlePericles of Athens. I've had a look at the section in question, and while greatly improved in quality, I do think it is a little verbose. As an example, in the first paragraph of #Early modern and modern perspectives, we have five individuals associating Augustus with tyranny across three and a half sentences. Those could be compressed quite a bit, or even (is the opinion of an unimportant Scottish admiral really necessary?) cut.
Then the next paragraphs are a little disconnected, with comments on themes separated and left a little at odds with each other. A line on a focus on art and literature in "more peaceful times" is weirdly placed between discussion on the upheaval of the 1930s; a comment by Goldsworthy (a presumably modern historian, although I don't think this is made explicit) interposes a lengthy discussion of Syme's 1939 book. Is the debate on embracing the deified Caesar part of the impact left by Syme? It's not entirely clear. Then the final paragraph stands out by giving examples to support the named historian's analysis; you could really make do with the first sentence, and consign the rest, if really necessary, to a note. (That said, the notes do seem a little excessive already - over 2,700 words.)
This could be a good idea, and I have already provided a shortened version for the "Early life" section. However, I do not intend to become further involved in developing the article as an editor, because this period lies only tangentially within my area of interest.Borsoka (talk)11:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 Good to know, thanks, and these are great suggestions. I'll make sure to trim, reorganize, and tidy up the "critical analysis" subsection a bit using your input. That aught to reduce the article prose size even further, along with further edits to the Early life section (I'm fine with cutting just a few more details there, loosely based on Borsoka's suggested version, since all content that used to exist in that section have been retained in the split sub-articleEarly life of Augustus).Pericles of AthensTalk14:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article's size is exactly as shown by the page size function. No, I have not read the article in full; however, I did look at the "Early life" section, which still contains a considerable amount of redundant material.Borsoka (talk)03:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Let me illustrate the point above with a trimmed text of 300 words, following a reduction of 25% (99 words). It focuses on Octavian in childhood and adolescence, rather than on other individuals or the wider history of the Late Roman Republic. All other figures, with the exception of the well known Caesar, are introduced briefly, in one or two words. Readers seeking further detail on Octavian's early life can consult the dedicated article.
Born in Rome on 23 September 63 BC into a moderately wealthy equestrian family of the gens Octavia, Octavian was the son of the politician Gaius Octavius and Atia, a niece of Julius Caesar. After his father’s death in 59 or 58 BC, his mother married Lucius Marcius Philippus, a former consul who retained his personal wealth despite the political turmoil of the Late Roman Republic. Octavian’s grandmother Julia, Caesar's sister, was also involved in his upbringing. When she died in 52 or 51 BC, Octavian delivered her funeral speech, marking his first public appearance. His early education included reading, writing, arithmetic, and Greek, taught by a Greek slave tutor, Sphaerus, to whom Octavian later granted a state funeral in 40 BC. As a teenager, he studied philosophy with the Stoic thinkers Areios of Alexandria and Athenodorus of Tarsus, and rhetoric under the Roman rhetorician Marcus Epidius and the Greek Apollodorus of Pergamon. In 47 BC, Octavian assumed thetoga virilis, formally marking his transition to adulthood.
In the same year, at Caesar's request, he was admitted to the College of Pontiffs, replacing Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, a political opponent of Caesar who had been killed in battle during the civil war between Caesar and Pompey. The following year, Octavian presided over the Greek games held to mark the opening of Caesar's Temple of Venus Genetrix. Although he wished to accompany Caesar on his African campaign, Octavian was prevented from taking part by his mother because of ill health. Despite this absence, Caesar allowed him to ride beside his chariot during his triumph and awarded him military honours. In 45 BC, Octavian joined Caesar's campaign in Iberia against Gnaeus Pompeius, son of the deceased Pompey. On 13 September 45 BC, Caesar named Octavian as his principal heir in his new will.Borsoka (talk)04:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka Interesting, because the size tool highlights the lead section in yellow when I use the tool, indicating that the lead section is included in the overall estimate of "prose" for the article (even though theWP:LEAD section is not considered by editors when judging the size of the prose body). I could be wrong about the lead being included in the estimate, but that's what the size tool seems to suggest. In either case, I will trim the Early life section again, but only loosely based on your suggested model, because rewriting it exactly as you've suggested would be somewhat of a pain in regards to shifting around citations from different sources. I would have to explain in each citation which scholar said this or that on specific pages of their articles/books when synthesizing materials. This combined with yet another reduction of the "critical analysis" section should reduce the prose size significantly.Pericles of AthensTalk14:21, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, the lead is treated as part of the article, and its words are therefore included in the overall word count. There may be some misunderstanding regarding the need to explain, in each citation, which scholar states what on specific pages. No such explanation is required. All that is needed is the inclusion of citations (ideally no more than two, and only in exceptional cases more than three) at least at the end of each paragraph to verify the text.Borsoka (talk)14:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enoughWikipedia:Article size does not address the issue and neither doesWP:LEAD, only that the lead section should be long enough or suitably short to reflect the size of the main prose body. However, this indicates that the lead section is considered separate from the main prose body. @Nikkimaria could you please verify if this is the case?Pericles of AthensTalk15:24, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For this purpose, the lead is part of the article. WP:LEAD also notes that "The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words."Nikkimaria (talk)00:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Thanks for letting me know! The lead for Augustus is a bit longer than that at 583 words. However, the lead does reflect all the most important points the article's prose body, and is about the same size as leadsin some of my other Featured articles likeCleopatra.Pericles of AthensTalk18:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka Although I did not use all of your suggestions here, I did use some of your precise wording, and removed further details, while moving some into footnotes instead. With that I think the Early life section has been cut down to size considerably enough. If anything, the "Sole Ruler of Rome" and "Legacy" sections need a bit more trimming instead, which I will address now.Pericles of AthensTalk15:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the first paragraph and made several edits, with explanations provided in the edit summaries. I have also added two tags highlighting potential issues.Borsoka (talk)02:36, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka I clarified about the citation verification, since most of it is found in Galinsky 2012 on the pages cited, but Southern basically makes half the point on page 10 of the 2014 edition.Pericles of AthensTalk18:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And by that I mean Southern 2014 says Octavian was likely influenced by Philippus's deft and diplomatic handling of political strife among rival factions in Rome, while Galinsky 2012 makes the fuller point about how Philippus managed to do this while also retaining his wealth.Pericles of AthensTalk22:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it appears that another editor did not agree with all of your changes and restored some bits about the young Octavius's father. For the record, I wasn't the editor who labeled his father "homonymous" either. At this stage historians tend to label Octavian by his birthname "Gaius Octavius" and not as "Octavian" until he accepted the name "Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus" outlined in Caesar's will of 44 BC.Pericles of AthensTalk03:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Separately as to the prose, I'm not entirely convinced that this strategy of just repeating what every scholar says in sequence is a good idea. The article should still be a synthesis of things said by the sources (ie notWP:SYNTH) rather than a list of Galinsky says, Goldsworthy says, Southern says, etc. This repetitious presentation strategy is at the root of a number of the length problems and the muddled presentation of certain complex topics.Ifly6 (talk)16:02, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ifly6 Well, the vast majority of statements in the article are a synthesis of statements found in multiple sources, though yes, the length issues are not helped by explaining the different views of scholars. However, sometimes that's actually necessary when there's no clear consensus and two or three different scholars say two or three different things, causing a discrepancy (usually because they trust different primary sources over others). I have tried to shift most of those types of statements to the footnotes, but apparently even that is now a point of contention due to the amount of material in the footnotes. Although I'm sad to see a lot of that material being removed or trimmed heavily, I think you did an okay job in deciding which ones needed the axe.Pericles of AthensTalk16:33, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just by way of example. This note:
Adrian Goldsworthy notes the ongoing academic debate about the nature of Augustus's still uncertain health problems. Some scholars suggest it was even feigned, or that his condition waspsychosomatic, but whatever the case, it affected his political career substantially, including his decision to search for an heir.[1] Both Goldsworthy andPatricia Southern speculate that it involvedissues with his liver.[2]
Can really just be:
The cause of Augustus's health problems is not clear. It may have been feigned orpsychosomatic; if real, some scholars have suggested aliver abscess.[3]
Shakespeare was being ironic when he said brevity is the soul of wit (Hamlet) – much in the same way it has been arguedvery convincingly that Vergil was so being re his "praise" of Augustus and the regime, but this can be discussed onTalk:Augustus, – but if not excised we really need some more brevity here.Ifly6 (talk)23:48, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ifly6 I replied on the talk page about Vergil. As for the footnote example above, I have amended it to follow your suggestion. Good choice! Though just to be clear, in the "critical analysis" subsection it is actually useful to distinguish what different scholars say on certain matters. For instance, when Goldsworthy and Southern disagree about how Augustus portrayed or allegedly distanced himself from Caesar following the latter's deification.Pericles of AthensTalk00:39, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ifly6 In terms of naming scholars and such, I have cut down on that a bit in recent trimmings. I have also worked to reduce the overall prose size more generally across various sections. Special thanks to you andUser:Векочел for helping to reduce theWP:SIZE of the article's prose body, per the concerns raised here by @Borsoka. Looks a lot leaner now!Pericles of AthensTalk19:53, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Small update: further trimmings have been made perWP:SIZE concerns, while the sub-articles have been simultaneously fleshed out more perWP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Another assessment by reviewers here would be most welcome at this time, as I think this article is either nearing completion or has already secured its FA status. Perhaps the somewhat wordy "Marcus Primus affair" subsection could use some tactful trimming, but all of the original concerns raised byUser:AirshipJungleman29 last April have been thoroughly addressed. Thoughts?Pericles of AthensTalk01:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ifly6 While I am sad to see the discussion of primary sources for Augustus's early life being removed from the article, I was at least able to shift that information over toEarly life of Augustus several days ago. I have massively improved that sub-article in the past week or so, and nominated it for GA status along with the other sub-articles. Thanks to you and @User:Векочел for all your hard work in making the prose more compact!Pericles of AthensTalk19:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ifly6 Following your advice, I have removed a few instances of directly naming historians/scholars in the prose, especially in instances where they are not being directly quoted or presenting a potentially contentious argument.Pericles of AthensTalk18:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
^Goldsworthy 2014, pp. 262–263, 265 sfnm error: no target: CITEREFGoldsworthy2014 (help);Southern 2014, p. 203 sfnm error: no target: CITEREFSouthern2014 (help).
I only dealt with section "Early life", but I found two sentences that seem to be not fully verified by none of the cited sources, although multiple sources are cited:
Octavius's stepfather served as a role model for how to deftly navigate politics and manage personal wealth. Among the authors cited to verify the sentence, Galinsky refers to Octavian's stepfather, Philippus, as a "father figure" without specifying the nature or extent of his influence on Octavian. Southern, meanwhile, suggests that Philippus "possibly" influenced Octavian "on how to deal with factional strife", but does not discuss any influence on matters of wealth management. As a result, the first part of the sentence (concerning politics) presents a scholarly assumption as established fact, while the second part (relating to wealth management) remains unsupported by the cited sources. Furthermore, among the other sources cited in the article, Shotter and Goldsworthy do not make a similar claim, which suggests that Southern's assumption is not widely accepted and, accordingly, should not be included in an overview of Octavian's life (WP:DUE).
Octavius was also partly raised by his grandmother Julia, the sister of Julius Caesar.. Among the cited sources, neither Shotter nor Galinsky makes any comparable remark. Southern does mention the issue, but only as a possibility, based on his reading of Nikolaus of Damascus' text. As a result, Goldsworthy is the only source that explicitly attributes a role to Julia in Octavian's upbringing. The sentence therefore once again presents a scholarly assumption as an established fact. Nevertheless, as this appears to be a relatively widespread assumption in the literature, it could be mentioned in the article as such, provided that its interpretative nature is made clear.
To my mind, the examples discussed above, drawn from a relatively short section, indicate that a thorough review of the sources is required in order to assess whether the article currently meets FACR 1c and 1d. The examples also suggest that several of the cited sources should or could be removed, as I noted earlier in my comments on citation style.Borsoka (talk)05:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka Firstly, you make a good point about scholarly assumptions, which can be mentioned in some sentences of the article, and the ones you highlighted can be reworded (I take no issue with that). However, generally speaking, doing this makes things much wordier, which is a thing you also seem to really dislike perWP:SIZE (to the point that you spoke in absolutes above rather than noting the flexible nature of the guidelines). It appears that you want editors to strike a perfect balancing act here, and your solution is rather extreme. For instance, extrapolating two isolated instances in one section pertaining to the most obscure period of Octavian's life and applying that assumption to the entire article for a total source review of all cited statements (LOL). That's kind of an extreme reaction to such a limited amount of pattern recognition, in my view.
Most statements in the article deal with established fact rather than scholarly assumptions. For that matter much care and attention was given to discrepancies in scholarly sources (see various footnotes where scholars like Goldsworthy, Southern, Galinsky, etc. disagree with each other on dates, figures, offices, events, etc.). For instance, @Ifly6 and I put together an explanatory footnote about the mirky issue of the consulship promised toSextus Pompey by the triumvirate after thePact of Misenum. You're welcome to waste your time and everyone else's with a painstaking review of each cited statement, but you'll probably quickly find out that they match the sources cited (similar to how Octavius wasprobably partly raised by Julia).
Small update: the "Earl life" section has been updated to say that these two things (i.e. Philippus's influence on Octavius and Julia partly raising Octavius) werelikely instead of firmly established facts agreed on by all/most scholars. Even though Galinsky 2012 was the one who brought it up, I even removed the bit about wealth management. I think that pretty much solves the two issues you've raised.
Also, your insistence that roughly only two sources or so should be cited for each statement is contradictory to your insistence that scholarly consensus should be demonstrated. I'm glad that I never took this advice of yours, because the article contains footnote examples where even Southern and Goldsworthy don't agree with each other, due to the erratic nature of the primary sources they work with to determine facts about the life of Augustus.Pericles of AthensTalk16:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, Southern and Goldsworthy strongly disagree about the extent to which primary sources can be used to infer that Augustus distanced himself from Julius Caesar the dictator over time, while still embracing the deified Julius Caesar.Pericles of AthensTalk16:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Once again, I have reviewed only a short paragraph and already identified two sentences that are not supported by the cited sources. Please bear in mind that when I first raised this issue by placing a "failed verification" tag at the end of one of those sentences, the tag was removed without the underlying problem being addressed, on the grounds, mentioned in the edit summary, that no problem existed ([2]). In light of this, a thorough review of sources throughout the article is unavoidable if its FA status is to be maintained. (2) Explicitly identifying a scholarly point of view does not make an article verbose. Rather, it ensures compliance withour relevant policy, which clearly states: "Avoid stating opinions as facts". What does introduce verbosity into a general article is the inclusion of marginal scholarly viewpoints. References to such marginal views should therefore be removed. (3) The examples above clearly demonstrate that my position regarding the unnecessary use of multiple citations is well founded. In the first case, the sentence appeared to be supported by two sources, yet only one actually verified the claim. In the second case, four sources were cited, but two of them did not address the issue at all. This accumulation of citations is misleading, as it creates the impression that what is in fact a scholarly interpretation is a well-established fact. (4) Where scholars disagree on a particular aspect of Augustus' life, a general article need only indicate that such a debate exists and very briefly summarise its substance. The detailed scholarly arguments can then be presented in a dedicated article focusing on the relevant period of his life.Borsoka (talk)02:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka Firstly, when Iadded the claim about Philippus on 22 May 2025, I cited only Galinsky 2012, where the information was gathered from initially. You have chosen to characterize Galinsky as saying Philippus was only a "father figure" but that Galinsky did not specify "the nature or extent of his influence on Octavian" (your words). Apparently you're not a huge fan of readingliterally the next paragraph of cited pages for fuller context. Shall we? In regards to Octavius's stepfather Philippus, Galinsky 2012 not only says the following:
"...Not the least of his achievements was that he kept his considerable personal wealth and did not fall victim to the preferred means of political fundraising in Rome during civil wars, the proscription list."
...but literally, in the next paragraph (which maybe you read), Galinsky says this:
"If, without stretching the point, we want to gauge these various influences on the formation of the future emperor, we can reasonably arrive at the following composite (and we will turn to his mother and teachers shortly). He was at home both in small-town Italy whose mindset he understood full well and in Rome where he could observe politics and the shaky state of the Republic first hand. His grandfather's example may have impressed on him the importance of solid finances and their administration, while his stepfather showed him how to navigate a minefield and err on the side of caution. The Octavii did not belong to the old nobility and Octavius' father, like Cicero, was one of the many 'new men' (novi homines) who made their way into the highest echelons of government by virtue of their own efforts. Through Marcius Philippus, however, the young Octavius also had a foot inside the traditional establishment. This diverse background, and the concomitant experiences, were going to serve him well."
Galinsky's next subsection on that page is titled "The Influence of His Mother" and, in the context of Philippus, says "He was also served well by his mother." So then, you either jumped the gun in giddy excitement to hastily prove a point without fully reading the pages cited, or you deliberately omitted all of this context by Galinsky and mischaracterized both my edits and the content in Galinsky's publication. Either way this does not inspire confidence in your argument about sources, which is flimsy at best consideringKarl Galinsky is a widely respected authority on the subject, and his "opinion" is based on lifelong professional reading of primary source material. Your claim that "the sentence appeared to be supported by two sources, yet only one actually verified the claim" does not pass muster considering how Galinsky 2012 is the one who makes the fuller point about politics, and this is backed up by Southern 2014. Your argument aboutWP:DUE isn't very strong ifboth of them are mentioning this.
The only useful thing you've managed to spur here is thatsome very select statements need minor tinkering of language to note likelihood versus established fact for some minor passing claims. Your suggestion for an extreme solution of doing a full source review is not only excessive given your two examples, but the first is based off either your mistake in not fully reading cited pages or a deliberate mischaracterization of Galinsky. As for the citation about Julia partly raising Octavius, adding Shotter 2005 and Galinsky 2012 seems to be one mere clerical error on my part, since those citations were meant for the connective statement about Octavius delivering her funeral oration in 52/51 BC, which is indeed on page 14 of Galinsky 2012. Of course you didn't mention that Galinsky 2012: p. 14 at least discusses Octavius and Julia (you characterize it as not making "any comparable remark" but, instead of operating inWP:GOODFAITH and seeing that this was the page cited for literally the next valid statement, you have decided that the whole article is a rotten apple that needs a full source review).Pericles of AthensTalk04:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, looking back on edits in November/December, I now remember that I added Shotter and Galinsky there for the claim that Julia was the sister of Julius Caesar, and simply forgot to distinguish in the citation that it was only Southern 2014 who mentioned her partially raising Octavius (I then added Goldsworthy to buttress Southern, forgetting about Shotter and Galinsky). Again, a minor clerical error which you have blown out of proportion with your suggestion. Though you are free to waste your time on a source review.Pericles of AthensTalk04:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing to stress: Southern 2014 says Philippus "possibly" influenced Octavian "on how to deal with factional strife," but Galinsky 2012 goes even harder, saying outright that "his stepfather showed him how to navigate a minefield and err on the side of caution". There's no equivocation here or an adverb like "possibly" or "likely" to soften the statement. Nearly half of your insistence on a source review is based on your misreading, failure, or (I hope not) an outrageous refusal to show the full context of Galinsky to reviewers here on the FAR page.Pericles of AthensTalk04:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your own remarks above, which acknowledge three clerical errors infive six cited sources in a very short passage—including references to two sources that do not verify the claim—reinforce the point I have been making throughout: the article requires a thorough review of its sources. My strong advice would be to focus your efforts on checking and correcting the citations, rather than expending your own time and that of other editors on lengthy exchanges. In a FARC context, issues relating to sourcing (and article length) would warrant serious concern.Borsoka (talk)04:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, running away as soon as I point out what you did with Galinsky 2012. Figures. Well then, I feel bad for whoever is duped into doing a full source review of the current 670 citations, because they're going to find arguably no statements following the one about dear old grandma Julia that have sourcing issues. I would be highly surprised if there were as many as one, let alone two (the extensive footnoting alone shows the amount of care and precision that went into parsing different sources that were used). Making one clerical mistake, which you've miraculously tripled by your count, is a blip on the radar. UndercoverClassicist is the one who shared Galinsky 2012 with me in the first place, and they've been reviewing various parts of this article for months now.Pericles of AthensTalk08:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not I who is seeking to avoid the issue. I have reviewed six cited references and identified three errors. I do not intend to pursue this matter further at this stage, since ensuring proper sourcing does not fall within my responsibility.Borsoka (talk)09:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Over-citation isn't ideal, but is far less serious a problem than under-citation: if a statement is cited to (say) three sources, and fully verified by two of them, there's no breach of the FAC criteria if it's also cited to a third which doesn't discuss the relevant material. That extra citation should still be removed, of course, but we're in much more subjective/minor territory than the reverse, where the material stated in the article isn't stated inany cited source.UndercoverClassicistT·C09:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For the avoidance of doubt, this thread concerns citation errors, not multiple citation. Moreover, if two of the four cited sources are silent on the role of Augustus's stepfather in his education, this indicates that the view is not widely accepted and should therefore not be included in a general article, in accordance withWP:DUE.Borsoka (talk)09:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If two of the four cited sources are silent on the role of Augustus's stepfather in his education, this indicates that the view is not widely accepted and should therefore not be included in a general article: I don't think that's a reasonable inference or a sound reading ofWP:DUE.UndercoverClassicistT·C09:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. There are niche topics that, for instance, Goldsworthy covers that Southern doesn't and vice versa. That doesn't mean various respective views of theirs are fringe ones within academia, publications about antiquity, and classicist circles. The topic of the long life and impactful reign of Augustus is enormous and can be viewed from various themes and angles, hence the somewhat larger than average size of this article. Quite frankly I don't even care much if the influence of Philippus on Augustus is included in this article or not, since it's covered in theEarly life of Augustus sub-article, but it's just silly to sayWP:DUE is the issue here as some outlandish justification for its removal.Pericles of AthensTalk04:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is the key difference between pessimistic and optimistic personalities: for me, 50% is not enough for the inclusion of a PoV, especially in an oversized article. :)Borsoka (talk)09:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your demands are just odd and misplaced, though. The topic of Augustus's life and reign is vast, absolutely enormous, and even small subjects within it can be tackled from multiple different angles and described in different ways by historians who choose for whatever reason to focus more on one subject rather than another. It's just weirdly rigid to expect each and every source to cover the topic of his stepfather in the exact same way. That's not the same thing asWP:DUE (i.e. no evidence Galinsky or Shotterdisagree with Southern and Goldsworthy), especially given the small sample size of selected secondary sources. There are mountains of other scholarly sources that could be cited about his early life, but obviously their inclusion as cited sources here is not feasible or a reasonable expectation. That's true even for the most well-sourced FA articles (especially since I personally don't have access to very many sources beyond theWikipedia Library).
Philippus is admittedly a minor footnote in the life of Augustus, but he's treated as such in our article and mentioned in roughly three sentences (only where he's relevant). The harmless and tiny amount of coverage he's given is hardly an issue worth raising here on the FAR page.Pericles of AthensTalk04:15, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In contrast to your remark above, I have never claimed that Galinsky or Shotter disagree with Southern and Goldsworthy. My point is simply that the article introduces a specific scholarly point of view which is not reflected in two major biographies. As such, underWP:DUE, it does not belong in a general overview article and should instead be addressed in a relevant specialised sub-article. This issue is particularly relevant given the excessive length of the article, which now stands at nearly 13,500 words. By way of comparison,Britannica covers Augustus's life in approximately 4,800 words ([3]). Moreover, a brief review of a short section was sufficient to identify two problematic sentences presenting scholarly interpretations as fact, as well as three errors across six citations. As I have already noted, this clearly indicates that a thorough source review is necessary. I regret to say that prolonged discussion appears to be taking precedence over addressing these substantive issues. At this point, further debate seems unproductive.Borsoka (talk)04:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since the information about Philippus now exists in theEarly life of Augustus article (due to me shifting it there earlier), I've decided to remove the claim here, since it's apparently such a sore spot and issue of contention for you. Killed two birds with one stone, since it also reduced the prose size of the article. Of course you'll be unappeased with thisSudetenland move (because apparently you think 4,800 words total is a swell idea), but I'm more concerned with other editors who might have similar concerns with the article size's size (now greatly reduced from just a month ago).Pericles of AthensTalk08:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for the record, Featured articles on Wikipedia usually exceed the length of typically smallBritannica articles. Of course you know that already, especially since we outlined the figure of 9,000 words above perWP:SIZE, but it's important to contextualize that for other reviewers who fall upon our unfortunate conversation. Here are some more relevant comparisons:Alexander the Great, a Good status article on a figure whose historical importance excels or equals that of Augustus, has over 13,000 words.Cleopatra, a Featured status article, also has over 13,000 words.Pericles of AthensTalk08:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, after reviewing many citations in the article per your suggestion, so far I've only slightly corrected one page range into the next page, then added another useful page number from the same source, and found out that another editor had removed one of my citations, which I restored and then added an additional one with light commentary. That's hardly grounds for a full source review, as you've been pushing.Pericles of AthensTalk13:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am indeed advocating for a thorough source review. The examples right at the start of this thread rather pushed me to pursue the point.Borsoka (talk)15:21, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
